Why does ignorance sell in America? This country has elected the worst president in American history, George W. Bush, twice. Now Sara Palin, Republican vice presidential candidate, appears to be more ignorant than even Bush. Yet she has found many enthusiastic supporters. In last nights debate, Palin smiled, winked at us repeatably, giggled like the teen beauty queen she once was, ignored the debate questions and instead recited talking points from the index cards she pulled out. She was a disgrace to every woman who has fought for the right to be validated on an equal platform as men based on their skills, ideals, principles, and logic. Some Palin reviews:
Huffington Post
This woman is dim. She's scary stupid.
WiredPRNews
Despite her appalling ignorance, everyone agrees that Palin made an impact.
Telegraph UK
The only possible excuse is she just went blank, or was worried about getting the name wrong. But that is almost as bad as the complete ignorance her wide-eyed, rambling response suggests.
San Francisco Chronicle
It's one thing to say Harvard shouldn't dictate what the country believes, but (the McCain-Palin team) is perilously close to arguing that ignorance is good.
Is it the widespread ignorance of the American people that has lead to senseless wars and economic collapse? A population made stupid by too much television, junk food, and far too much religion?
The Philosophy of Freedom was written in a way to end stupidity by anyone who reads and study’s it. Yes, the book is difficult, but that is the point. You can’t sharpen your mind by reading tabloids, comics, or the non-challenging information books commonly sold. You can't learn how to think without being challenged to think. Everyone acknowledges you need rigorous physical exercise to get the body in shape. It’s the same with the mind. Ending stupidity requires vigorous mental exercise. Start today!
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| sarah-palin.jpg | 8.74 KB |
Gump is Good
In the eighties we had to see Michael Douglas proclaiming "Greed is Good". We can see the consequences of that at work in the financial markets at the moment.
In the nineties we suffered Tom Hanks' "Gump is good" - even though Forrest Gump is very short on reflection and critical understanding he does lots of stuff in his life and has "good" values so he must be OK.
In this spirit the world gets Ronald Reagan, the two Bushes, Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin etc.
Reminds me of the Peter Sellers movie "Being There" - the point of that movie of course was that people, including voters, projected onto Sellers' "Chauncey Gardiner" character whatever they wanted to see. But for some reason they didn't realise there wasn't a complete human being present in there at all, maybe they don't really want a human being?
Governor Sara Palin
One may not think that Governor Sara Palin has the experience to be Vice President of the United States, but she is not a stupid woman and she is not a disgrace. She has grace; she has a good marriage and children she loves, including a mentally handicapped child she had the courage to bring into the world and love. All this childish name-calling and distain directed at Gov. Palin as a person and as a woman, does not serve the cause of the Democratic Party, it just makes the people of the Democratic Party look small and hateful.
I really dislike politics for this very reason. It would seem people are not able to articulate in a courteous fashion why they disagree with or think someone should not be Vice President. All we see on newsblogs like the Huffington Post are hateful/spiteful comments with no real relevance. With this kind of behavior, members of the Democratic Party make her look sympathetic to others, and she just may end up living in the Vice President's mansion because of the unenlightened behavior by those members of the Democratic Party who chose to involve themselves in this kind of behavior.
If you think she should not be Vice President and that she has not the experince needed for that office and you don't agree with her political viewpoint or ideas, say so and why, don't disparage her personhood. Tina Fey is awfully good and funny in her depiction of Gov. Palin, but I don't think she does this with hate.
Love to all,
Patri
Patri, I am sure you felt
Patri, I am sure you felt an emotional reaction when you saw pictures of people being tortured at Abugreb or the remains of dead children bombed from the air in Iraq. I'm sure you felt disgust and anger over the senselessness of it all. You likely got upset when an old couple you know who both worked hard all their life feel the humuliation of being financially wiped out as soon as one of them gets ill. Unless you are a disconnected spiritualist you will know these are social problems rooted in ignorant decisions. They are the results of decisions made out of the folksy ignorance of religious fundamentalists like George W. Bush and Sara Palin. When people get upset at Palin they see the future human misery and atrocities that would occur if she ever attained a position of power. I get upset because I don't see a folksy maverick, I see a future human butcher.
Hatred solves no problems
Hatred solves no problems.
I may get upset, I may heartily disagree, but I do not allow my SELF to hate. If I allow myself to indulge in the cesspool of hatred, then I am not much better than the people I hate.
The last 100 years of our World History, especially the last two worldwide wars, has seen unbelievably harsh evil committed through hate of the other. It is still being committed worldwide. I think there must be another way to change our world for the better because unrelenting hatred has done nothing but breed more hatred and more war.
I will hold the other in respect, even if I may disagree with their politics. I will not call them butchers. If you use that name you will have to apply it to the whole of all those who have supported all the wars through the last 100 years.
There must be another way, a way to communicate to others in which they are able to understand your point of view, perhaps there is even a good way to move our world forward, to create love and trust throughout the whole of our world, but it is not through hatred. As far as the financial problems in this country are concerned, that is way beyond politics, and has been a long time coming as the result of mistakes allaround by all manner of people who put greed and lust for money or power ahead of the good for all.
Love to you.
Cheers,
Patri
Hate has two definitions
Hate has two definitions according to the dictionary. One involves hostility and the other is extreme dislike. I would never submit a Republican to the same torture they inflict to others or wish them harm. But I do have an extreme antipathy to sociopaths who willingly inflict pain on others to achieve some delusional gain.
1a. To feel hostility or animosity toward. b. To detest. 2. To feel dislike or distaste for: hates washing dishes.
sociopath
sociopath: an aggressively antisocial psychopath. psychopath: one suffering from emotional disorders with amoral and asocial behavior.
The above definitions could describe a lot of people, politics aside. I do not defend the Republicans or the Democrats, I do not defend politics at all. There seems to be a lot of antipathy on both sides and a lot of hatred as well. I will not get into a big political discussion here, like I said I dislike politics intensely.
I support the Philosophy of Freedom, which allows for the freedom of the other to think for his or her SELF. I support the deed of Rudolf Steiner that he tried to bring into the world, that had the hope of leading to a new way of thinking of viewing situations. If you look at the history of our planet, there is a need for a new thinking, a new way of approaching problems without hatred. You are not a free person, if you are ruled by your sympathies or antipathies.
The best to you and love to all.
Patri
Wonderfully put. What the
Wonderfully put.
What the world needs most-- more than an end to torturing and war and corporate greed-- is healthy observation.
Not a Personal Attack
Hi Patri,
I appreciate your concern for Sarah Palin as a decent person - but I think what Tom is talking about is the general phenomenon of the "dumbing down" of politics. If people are also taking a certain amount of pleasure in slinging mud at her personally for their own reasons that's unfortunate.
Not that a smart politician is necessarily going to be a "good" (in the sense of either moral or efficient) politician - however surely if we are to be led well in this world we need politicians who are broad-minded, intelligent and well educated amongst other qualities?
Thanks Tim
Hi Tim,
Yes, of course I agree, we need politicians who are broad-minded, intelligent and well educated, but we also need politicians who have an intelligent moral quotient, who are able to see the whole picture, and who through their own life experience have developed some genuine humility. Many people I know who are highly educated, who think they are broad-minded are really prejudiced against those they consider not as educated as they are, not as smart, not as worldly, etc. Just because you have a good intelligence does not mean you have a good heart, or a good moral compass. We see many, so-called intelligent people, who are filled with bitterness, whose lives are filled with hatred for those who do not agree, or may agree differently from the way they view the world. It is easy to throw blame at others. How is one helping the world in a positive way, no matter our individual intelligence, if one’s heart is full of bitterness and anger? I want to look to myself first, clean up my own house (soul/spirit) before I start blaming others. I find it sad when I see people judging others in a manner in which they start calling them ugly and vicious names (the internet seems to be a cesspool for this). I think we all need to look at our own lives and how we behave in the world, have the courage to look honestly at how we behave towards others even those we may feel antipathy towards, and then we should look into our own individual hearts and try to see truthfully what lives there. Rudolf Steiner termed this "The Meeting With the Guardian of the Threshold," or seeing the truth of our own shadow self.
My experience of Steiner’s “Philosophy of Freedom” is that when you make that breakthrough you see the whole world in an entirely different light.
Thanks again Tim, I always appreciate the thoughts and the writings you express on this website.
Love,
Patri
You know, I just thought of
You know, I just thought of something. The entire time during the debate I could not help but see only one side of Palin--all I kept noticing was how she dodged questions and instead answered in mindless political abstractions ("We're going to reform Washington" "Change is on the way") After the debate I thought "How could anyone think Palin won?" But to my shock everyone who was interviewed afterwards thought Palin had won.
I watched it, by the way, on NBC which is certainly the most liberal of the major networks. Brian Williams interviewed numerous women--mostly liberal-- who thought Palin not only won, but destroyed Biden.
My own wife and all of her friends--who are liberal-- thought Palin did great. At first, I though it was some sort of sexist bias. But after your comments I'm starting to view it in a different way. I think that women might just see strength in her--not because she beat Biden in the game of argument-chess, which she didn't--but because of who she is--a person who "has grace; she has a good marriage and children she loves, including a mentally handicapped child she had the courage to bring into the world and love". She has overcome something that alot of women can relate to and I can now see that her even being on that stage must have impressed women everywhere.
And isn't this what observation is all about? Being able to see something from a perspective that isn't your own? When you connect with Palin like that it's easy to see why so many people feel the way they do about her.
This isn't a personal
This isn't a personal attack at you Blake, I'm just using you to make a point.
We are talking about the Vice-President of the United States of America, in some respect it was impressive for her to stand up there but that shouldn't be enough. It shouldn't matter if she's a woman, or if she overcame a lot to stand up there next to Biden. If your going to be sitting next to the most powerful man in the world you better damn well be qualified, you better have an understanding and a knowledge that you can make effective decisions. Having "grace, a good marriage children she loves, etc..." doesn't mean she should be second in command, it doesn't mean she has the knowledge and understanding to make decisions. BUT that doesn't mean she does not have those ability's all I'm saying is that it shouldn't be enough.
To me she showed a complete lack of understanding on how to make decisions or have any knowledge whatsoever on the problems that we are facing ..atleast she's good to look at, can't say that about any other candidate.
Oh yeah, I completely agree
Oh yeah, I completely agree with you Matt-- Palin's performance in the debate clearly showed that she doesn't have the knowledge and the experience to handle the Office of the VP, much less the P.
All I meant is that I can now see why alot of people even thought she won.. It was so alien to me that anyone, in good conscience, could believe that she won--or even did well, or even "held her own." It was so alien to me that someone could think that way...but Patri's post shed some light on that.
But I think we're in full agreement that being a good mother doesn't qualify someone to be President.
I failed to see your
I failed to see your comment on Forrest Gump and its relation to the OP post, I haven't seen the movie in a long time so my insight into it might be hazy, but wasn't he some sort of mentally challenged?
Gump
Yes that's right he was "not the sharpest tool in the shed", as the saying goes, but his heart was in the right place and he could run really really quickly and was part of lots of historical events.
Sorry if I'm being too obscure here!
For my info - I think when you say OP it means "Old Party" is that right? Isn't it usually GOP for "Grand Old Party"?
OP means the Original
OP means the Original Poster which means it refers to the person who started the thread's post.
Sorry if I was testy I'm used to talking on gaming forums where anything anybody says is generally meant in a negative fashion haha.
Does everyone think this
Does everyone think this needs to become a left-wing blog, especially one that spreads the hateful, polarized poison of the Huffington Post? Now, no doubt, The Philosophy of Freedom is above ignorance. But I also can't recall the chapter where Steiner talks about how the Sharks are clearly more entitled to stab the Jets.
Sarah Palin's performance in the debate was shameful to me, I agree on that. I'm also very concerned that so many people didn't seem to notice it. My wife (who is pretty liberal and definately no Palin fan) even thought she did well. But let's not forget that while the Obama ticket definately has the intellect--no doubt about that--I must say that neither they nor the other side has shown the true independent thinking that exemplifies the POF. Obama has a gift for deep penetrative perception and expression--but wide perception? There is no doubt that he can percieve and communicate the depths of the liberal philosophy. But until he shows his willingness to mentally penetrate into the widths, then his heart is clenched in the clutches of a left-winged eagle, doomed to fall with it.
Friends, we should expose every thought form which is posessed--not merely those of conservatives. And this should also be a site that cheers anyone who makes a genuine effort towards free-thinking. In politics, I think we would do better to point to the independent spirit of a Ron Paul or the now defunct Natural Law Party. I won't argue that these still fall short--but what I find commendable in these two examples is their striving.
I sense that the time will come when people are able to make some radical changes to this world--perhaps very soon. I also believe that this blog could have a great part in that. And I know--believe me I know-- that it's simply all-too-human to take sides in this world of politics. But let's not forget that this is a public blog, read by many, and it has a living philosophy behind it. Please. let's not bury a living spirit beneath the very world that needs it.
"we should expose every
"we should expose every thought form which is possessed--not merely those of conservatives" I think that is an excellent point. Part of gaining freedom is to become conscious of the fixed thinking and group think that we aren't aware of. The style used in POF is to point out these sticking points. When ever I discover one of these in myself I say, wow, and am always surprised that I didn't notice it before. Lately I have been aware of Anthroposophical Society dogma. It is amazing to watch. Such things as not entering into a political discussion is right out of Society dogma. It would be helpful if Society members would ask themselves if their post is Society dogma before they post just to help with their self-awareness. I think it is very important to recognize how everything talked about in POF is being played out everyday in everything around us. Politics is a gold mine for studying human nature and forming / controlling social groups.
When it comes to the application of moral principles in the world you have to remember moral technique. Obama has gathered experts around him that understand the laws of the world. Steiner's freedom philosophy is idealistic but also reality based. It will take awhile before we know if Obama can actually govern. The other Democrats in congress have been a failure and also get their money from wall street. Money is a powerful influence on the will. I laughed when Kos at the liberal DailyKos started running Chevron ads that appeared after midnight and then disappeared the next morning. The oil company knows enough about human nature that their money will influence. The liberals thought the oil company was a sucker for giving them money and they will use the money for good instead. Ha Ha. They don't understand. Obama stopped accepting corporate money because he knew he couldn't trust his own human nature.
Some of the free thinkers remain on the fringe because they lack the knowledge or imagination to work with the existing laws of behavior and customs to transform society. Extreme spiritualists that never get farther than a study group are unable to form the moral imaginations needed to actually transform life or lack the formal education needed for moral technique. It takes a wide range of spiritual and worldly skill to actually do something well. A lot of people have good worldly skills and good intentions. Add the knowledge and training of POF to these people and amazing things will happen.
Whoa there Tom!
I don't like the sound of "never get farther than a study group". Just how are you measuring the distances involved?
And people's alleged inability to "actually transform life" -well thats a convienient-for-an-accuser open ended phrase and charge.
As for formal education being a prerequisite for moral technique, even using moral technique in the strictly PoF sense, I can't go with this. I know plenty of "dumb" souls whose specific expressed insights on the most worldly details are spectacularly acute when they want it. It inspires/teaches me.
Mine is a hasty reaction here, but it seems to me different people form different moral imaginations. If you have an imagination of universal love thats your situation. No one else is under any obligation to do the same.
Love
Bryn
Post new comment